beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 2,588,086; (b) KRW 742,420; and (c) against each of the said money, from August 2, 2017 to August 2, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 27, 2002, Plaintiff A acquired real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 1], and the Plaintiffs acquired each real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 2 and No. 3 on January 15, 2003 (hereinafter “No. 1/2”) with 1/2 shares (hereinafter “the land”), and the Plaintiffs are married.
B. Around 2005, the Defendant performed C&D works (hereinafter “instant road”); the said road was 92 square meters out of the land No. 1; 63 square meters of the land No. 2; and 11 square meters of the land No. 3, among the land No. 3 (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant restored to its original state each part of the instant roads, which affected each of the instant land, through “D Corporation”.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 14 (including additional numbers), the appraiser's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Article 201(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the possessor of the good faith shall acquire the fruits of the possessor’s possession.” The possessor of the good faith in this context refers to the possessor of the right to receive the fruits, which includes the right to receive the fruits. However, there is a justifiable ground to mislead the possessor of the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27069, Aug. 25, 1995). Furthermore, the possessor is presumed to have occupied the property in good faith pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Act, and the possessor was presumed to have occupied the property in good faith and was found to have occupied the property without title, and the presumption of good faith in the past is not deemed to have been broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6350, Mar. 10, 200). In addition, the same applies to the negligence arising from the use of the land, and thus, the possessor may cause damage to the third party’s land without any legal cause.
Even if the benefit from the possession and use is the other person.